patrick.net

Hater says

Climatologists were wrong then (maybe) what makes them so right now?

First off, science is a self-correcting mechanism. It should be expected that scientific predictions get better with time. When hurricane predictions were first started they were barely accurate. The actual path deviated from the predicted path, not completely, but largely. As time went on, the predictions became more accurate. Today, the actual paths have almost no deviation from the predicted paths. It's called progress.

So even if scientists were predicting another ice age in the 1960s, that would not invalidate today's predictions. Science, technology, and measurements become better and more detailed with time. The very principle you are proposing is wrong.

Second, you once again have gotten the facts all wrong. Although a few climate scientists wrote papers stating that another ice age might occur, the overwhelming number, even in the 1960s thought that global warming was far, far more likely. This is reflected in the sheer numbers of papers written about the latter. As time progressed, the global warming evidence mounted and now all papers predict and measure global warming.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science

Of course, now that I have presented the evidence that contradicts your conclusions, your reaction will be
Oh, wow. I did not know that. You're right. The scientific evidence is, and has always, been that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution. Now that I have the evidence and that you have shown me that the bogus evidence I had read was debunked, I'll change my mind to reflect what dozens of reputable scientific organizations, thousands of independent lines of evidence, and millions of scientists around the world have concluded. After all, if I didn't change my mind at this point, I'd be a complete hypocrite using fake evidence I knew was fake to convince people of what I knew to be a lie.

I await your retraction of every claim you have made in this thread.

Hater says

Oh, I see. Al Gore said "could".

And he was right. Based on the evidence, the worst case scenario was what he presented as the worst case scenario. The best case scenario was also what he presented as the best case scenario. We are better off than that worst case scenario, but we are also certainly worse off than the best case scenario.

It's funny how this is almost always the case in reality. That reality falls somewhere between the worst and best cases. It's almost as if the two extremes represent upper and lower bounds.

So are you admitting that you were wrong about Gore? Or does that take more emotional maturity than you can muster?

Hater says

Dan8267 says

3. Previous productive farm land will be subjected to droughts or flooding.

and new farmland will open up.

So, how exactly will one farm in downtown New York City?

And have you thought that entire nations that are dependent upon their agricultural industry to feed themselves will experience mass starvation? Not every country has as much land as the United States, particularly at varying latitudes. But hey, fuck everyone who's not an American. They deserve to die for not having the intelligence of being born in America.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

4. Terrorism will increase due to the political instability created by climate change.

REALLY!!!

Where is your proof?

Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change

The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.

The report lays out a road map to show how the military will adapt to rising sea levels, more violent storms and widespread droughts. The Defense Department will begin by integrating plans for climate change risks across all of its operations, from war games and strategic military planning situations to a rethinking of the movement of supplies.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking Monday at a meeting of defense ministers in Peru, highlighted the report’s findings and the global security threats of climate change.

“The loss of glaciers will strain water supplies in several areas of our hemisphere,” Mr. Hagel said. “Destruction and devastation from hurricanes can sow the seeds for instability. Droughts and crop failures can leave millions of people without any lifeline, and trigger waves of mass migration.”

The report is the latest in a series of studies highlighting the national security risks of climate change. But the Pentagon’s characterization of it as a present-day threat demanding immediate action represents a significant shift for the military, which has in the past focused on climate change as a future risk.

Do you have the intellectual honest to admit you were wrong about this as well? Awaiting your sincere concession.

But hey, why believe the Pentagon? What do those people know about national security? Sounds like hippie hysteria over climate change, and career military generals are known for hysteria. Why, five star generals are like 1950s house wives screaming on a chair whenever they see a mouse.

rando says

"Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."

Just don't assume the rise in sea-levels will be linear. That would be batshit stupid. Nature rarely follows linear patterns.

The melting of ice creates a positive feedback which exponentially increases warming. Ice is white. When it melts, less sunlight is reflected back into space, and more warming occurs, melting more ice.

As for the significance of sea-level rises, how much does all the real estate in Miami cost anyway?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html?_r=0

With just a five foot rise...

So excuse me for giving a shit if the cities I live and work in are swallowed by the seas and all businesses in them cease. I think that would lower the fucking GDP what with the loss of production, massive unemployment, refugees, and destruction of infrastructure.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

The U.S. Navys Special Warfare Development Group, better known as the SEAL Team 6, will arrive in South Korea soon for joint military drills and take part in an exercise simulating the removal of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un

ha ha
I bet the fat brat is hiding in the bathroom.

curious2 says

If I may suggest we move on from whether the climate is warming and at what rate, can somebody please tell me whether any political party has any policy that would actually manage the climate?

Right now, neither of the two major parties has a plan. That is what needs to change. There are numerous policies we can implement to mintage climate change and pay for the damages we cannot avoid. This can be done with anti-pollution laws, fines, sin taxes, cap-and-trade, requiring environmental standards to be met for access to the U.S. market, efforts to clean up pollution, ending oil subsidies, subsidizing clean energy technology, changing laws so that anyone can produce and sell excess energy on our nation's grid, and so much more.

curious2 says

Has any American party, major or independent, proposed researching and developing the geo-engineering that would be necessary actually to manage the climate?

Yes, the Green Party, no surprise. Their platform lists various solutions.
1. Strong International Climate Treaty
2. Enact a Fee & Dividend system on fossil fuels
3. Elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, nuclear power, biomass and waste incineration and biofuels.
4. To prevent perverse incentives arising from higher carbon prices, the Green Party mandates clean fuels in
addition to pricing carbon.
5. Pay for adaptation to climate change in countries less responsibility for climate change
6. Provide a carbon neutral development path for those countries that can no longer be permitted to develop in the same way we did—by burning cheap fossil fuels
7. Adopt energy efficiency standards that reduce energy demand economy-wide by 50% over the next 20–30 years.
8. Build an efficient, low cost public transportation system.
9. Adopt a national zero waste policy.
10. Create an inclusive program to train workers for the new, clean energy economy.
11. Adopt a clean energy portfolio standard that rapidly replaces our combustion-based power sources with wind, solar, ocean, small-scale hydro, and geothermal power
12. End the use of nuclear power.
13. Convert U.S farm and ranchland to organic practices. Chemical and industrial agriculture produces 35-50% of climate destabilizing greenhouse gases.
14. Switch to local food production and distribution. Localized, organic food production and distribution reduce fossil fuel usage and enriches soil that sequesters more carbon dioxide.
15. Reduce methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases by rapidly phasing out confined animal feeding operations, and encouraging a reduction in meat consumption.
16. Retrofit U.S. building stock for energy efficiency.
17. Energy efficiency standards similar to those in California to be adopted nationally.
18. A carbon tax
19. Increase funding of clean energy research and development
20. Policy tools to directly support the development of renewable energy sources, such as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and Feed-in Tariffs
21. State-level financing policies like California’s AB 811 can help homeowners install expensive renewable energy where the county pays the up-front cost and the system is paid for via the homeowner’s property taxes.
22. Renewable energy certificates
23. Ban on the construction of large-scale and inappropriately-located, hydroelectric dams.
24. A formal moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants
25. A ban on mountaintop removal coal mining
26. The cessation of development of fuels produced with polluting, energy-intensive processes or
from unsustainable or toxic feed stocks, such as genetically-engineered crops, coal and waste streams contaminated with persistent toxics
27. Ban oil and gas drilling or exploration on our nation’s outer continental shelf, on our public lands, in the Rocky Mountains, and under the Great Lakes
28. Enact a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing
29. Decentralize the electricity generation and distribution
30. Implement more smart grids.
31. Tax-exempt bonds to finance public ownership of utilities and to allow publicly owned utilities to finance conservation and renewable energy projects.
32. Oppose efforts to deregulate the energy industry.

These are just a few of their platform points. I don't agree with some of the policies, as I look at things as an engineer, not as a social advocate, but mostly the Green Party is on track.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

US NAVY TAKES CUE FROM PATNET: SEAL TEAM 6 PLANNING TO ASSASSINATE UNHOLY FAT FUCK KIM JONG-UN

Seems like a waste of resources. Couldn't we just send the Berkley protesters to mob rush Kim Jong-Un sacrificing themselves one by one until they can stab him in the face?

Dan8267 says

I look at things as an engineer, not as a social advocate, but mostly the Green Party is on track.

I wish, but no. Nothing in the Green Party platform that you quoted can realistically be called a "solution" and none of it supports geo-engineering. To the contrary, read for yourself:

"26. The cessation of development of fuels produced with...genetically-engineered crops...."

In other words, the heretics and infidels genetically modifying algae or switchgrass to produce carbon neutral fuel would be stopped. Many in the Green Party and the independent news sites that support them have a mystical and quasi-religious bias against science and engineering, related to opposing capitalism. Similarly to how the Vatican denounces scientific advances in contraception, RU486, and IVF as tampering with "God's plan," Greens tend to denounce everything that involves human engineers tampering with "Mother Nature's plan" as a sin. There are also similarities and overlap with some subsets of feminists: engineers tend to be men, and geo-engineers would violate Mother Nature against her mystical will. Too many Greens tend also to identify with any superstition they consider sympathetic, including rain dancing native Americans and (most bizarrely) Islam. The Green Party does not propose any actual solution to climate change, but rather proposes a list of prohibitions and taxes that would impede the capitalists and (mostly male) engineers who, according to many Greens, have caused all these problems and must be stopped before they (you) do even more damage.

You guys are funny

Can't Trumpigula simply call in a favor from Putin to have Kim Jong-un assassinated with polonium? Putin will certainly it for his orange bear especially after all those all-night fisting sessions.

I've been sending great leader happy meals for the past 10 years. Eventually my plan to kill him will succeed. You can already see it working in his fat face.

Another repost

Hater says

Dan8267 says

So, how exactly will one farm in downtown New York City?

Window boxes?

Failed. Millions die. Good job.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

have you thought that entire nations that are dependent upon their agricultural industry to feed themselves will experience mass starvation?

That is another death scenario from the 70's, but we made it!

Are you seriously trying to refute the Pentagon's claims with that snarky comment? Sorry, but I'll listen to the experts rather than some ignorant armchair quarterback who has already presented so many debunked lies and refuses to admit that he's wrong even after being shown the real evidence.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.

Name one "humanitarian disaster" caused by global warming since Katrina?

You are a fool if you think that the crises created by climate change will have climate change stamped on them. That's not how reality works. Nonetheless, we can be certain that climate change is causing crises because of a little thing called statistics. It's amazing how powerful math is.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

With just a five foot rise...

at current rates that would take half a century.

Dan8267 says

rando says

"Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."

Just don't assume the rise in sea-levels will be linear. That would be batshit stupid. Nature rarely follows linear patterns.

The melting of ice creates a positive feedback which exponentially increases warming. Ice is white. When it melts, less sunlight is reflected back into space, and more warming occurs, melting more ice.

Reduce the population to 1 Billion by strict child licensing over the next century and 90% of the problems vanish.

All else is of minor importance.

Recycling Cardboard, Glass and Plastic Bottles, and separating yellow paper from white paper from non-yellow colored paper is to the Environment what the TSA is to security. And that's not fair to the TSA, which is far more effective with security theater in protecting from terrorism than recycling is 'protecting' the Earth.

Kim loves the toys. The fatty burgers are just a bonus.

Yes, overpopulation is a critical problem. However, I would not say it's the only problem. Even with a world-wide reduction of 90% of the population, coal power plants would still do great harm.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

I think a lot of people would pay for the chance to take out Kimfuck with a piece of lamp cord.

Who gets his pretty wife after the fat hubby is taken out?

Hater says

1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)

Climatologists were wrong then (maybe) what makes them so right now?

In the 70s, the concern that human activity would push the earth into a positive feedback loop of cooling was entirely reasonable based on projections of increased aerosol and particulate emissions which block at high altitude and/or reflect sunlight away from the surface. These smog components proved relatively easy to eliminate from smokestack and tailpipe emissions through emission control regulations and systems, leaving primarily CO2, a potent GHG.

Silly the way non-scientists consider this a contradiction or error in climate science, or proof that "scientists don't know what they're talking about."

He is a commie socialist libtard with your money, NOT his!

Automan Empire says

In the 70s, the concern that human activity would push the earth into a positive feedback loop of cooling was entirely reasonable based on projections of increased aerosol and particulate emissions which block at high altitude and/or reflect sunlight away from the surface. These smog components proved relatively easy to eliminate from smokestack and tailpipe emissions through emission control regulations and systems, leaving primarily CO2, a potent GHG.

If that is correct, then global warming is caused by environmental regulations imposed since the 1970s, and could be easily solved by repealing some of those. American voters recently elected a President who campaigned on repealing some regulations and restoring smokestack industries.

@Ironman is that a photo of the actual house in the original post above?

That would be unthinkably beautiful for $600K around the SF Bay Area. Maybe winter is worth it...

rando says

That would be unthinkably beautiful for $600K around the SF Bay Area. Maybe winter is worth it...

$600K in the SFBA? Maybe a one-bedroom condo in East Palo Alto.

Dibs, I'll take it. what's the preferred payment method?

a lot of irony in these gold sales...
- making a thread claiming it's "safe" to buy gold again then unloading his gold inventory shortly. really? are there other bad investments that need bailing out?
- so all these years he has been nervous and hoarding gold under Obama's regime and it's only now that he begins to have trust in the economy again. yet he refuses to admit Trump is a much better president???

Mother Nature is just getting started.

I'd be very happy if people would use patrick.net to sell more stuff.

Go for it! No fees from this site. But don't cross the line into spam, i.e. links to some viagra site.

Eventually maybe there would be revenue from relevant ads.

indigenous says

Where is the money trail on this?

The timing is conspicuous, if true is he that stupid or just doesn't give a shit?

Ironman says

His 3rd Home, was this a "pay-off" gift from Hillary??

Nothing like not knowing what you are talking about. But that is the natural state of some posters. His wife sold her family house in maine to buy this one. Duh. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2016/08/08/bernie-sanders-buys-a-summer-home-in-north-hero

“My family had a lake home in Maine since 1900, but we hadn’t had the time to go there in recent years — especially since my parents passed away,” she said. “We finally let go of it and that enabled us to buy a place in the islands — something I’ve always hoped for. ”

But hey don't let pesky facts get in the way of being an idiot.

Despite the ramblings of the oppressed left, the theme of the thread in all it's glory remains determinedly poignant.
The oppressed are homeless and starving while their great white haired spokesman can't seem to get enough residences to cover his ass...

Ironman says

The Man Of The People, Bernie Sanders, Buys $600K Summer Home

Some think that the bank regulations were designed not so much to avoid disaster but to deter competition. I don't know if this is true. I'm not sure about the repeal of the regulations but I hope it won't lead to another bubble.

Yes, actually the northern CA coast is very nice and not all that expensive either.

But there are not so many humans around, and very few jobs outside of marijuana cultivation.

I like people. Actually a smallish town might be ironically much better for meeting lots of people than a city. Maybe some place with a population of about 10,000.

Reposting again. This is starting to demonstrate the Barbara Streisand Effect.

Reposting post marked ad hom for supression. Also marked Hater's posts ad hom in retaliation. @Patrick, how's that ad hom working? Looks like a lot of abuse.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

Climate change is a problem that is both important and urgent, and thus should be handled right away

How you gonna make those foreign polluters obey?

This is like arguing that we should not try to stop terrorism simply because not every state is doing so. It's a retarded argument.

1. Pollution is cumulative. So the pollution we add matters regardless of what other states do.
2. Pollution is most destructive locally. More reasons why we should stop polluting our land, air, and water.
3. Yes, there are plenty of mechanisms for reducing world-wide pollution by all states.
4. There is the political will from other states to cooperate on pollution control. This was proven with the Kyoto Protocol.

The Only Nations That Haven't Signed 1997's Global Climate Treaty are Afghanistan, Sudan & the U.S.A. (Great company we're keeping.)

A total of 192 countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty that's the closest thing we have to a working global agreement to fight climate change. That's almost every country, state, and even one "regional economic integration organization", according to the United Nations.

Saying that the United States can do nothing about climate change because we don't have the cooperation of other nations is completely wrong and beyond stupid.

Hater says

And there is nothing you can do to stop global warming. So stop scaring the children with dire scenarios and start lobbying to cut population and pollution, which are the REAL problems facing humanity.

Climate change is a real problem, and it's occurring right now and creating problems right now. But like most problems, it will get must worse if left to fester.

Your selfish and defeatist comment reveals your intent. You don't care that climate change is real or its effects are terrible. You simply don't want us addressing the problem. That is why you should not be respected. You have never been concerned about the truth or what is best for America, only preventing selfish people like you from being able to pollute and impoverish the rest of us to satisfy your own greed.

You are also wrong about there being nothing we can do to mitigate and prepare for climate change. If that were the case, you would not be afraid that we will do those things. We can start with pollution control laws and pollution taxes. As I stated, this is the free market solution. Allowing pollution is corporate welfare and letting the state pick winners and losers. Pollution is communism.

Hater says

And you think Al Gore didn't say all of the ice would melt unless you give him money.

He did not say that, and only an idiot would claim so.

The only people with profit motives are the polluters denying climate change. They are like the tobacco industry claiming that smoking does not cause cancer.

It takes a particularly immoral scumbag to lie when lives are at stake. How Unamerican is it to endanger your fellow Americans with lies? It's as bad as terrorism.

Hater says

Why do you want to farm in Manhattan?

If you don't understand my response, you are beyond hope. I cannot dumb it down any more. Everyone else got the point.

Hater says

@dan8267

You don't win a debate by telling other people how stupid they are. And if you really think someone is so stupid, why debate them?

Keep it civil, argue ideas not who fucks more goats

Oh honeybuns, I presented verified evidence from experts and countered every single debunked lie you repeated. It is you who is not rising to the challenge of debate.

Oh, and civility means not lying in a debate. You can disagree about opinions. You can present honest evidence to support your case. You can make rational arguments against the other side's evidence. But if you post false evidence that has been debunked and keep claiming it as legitimate evidence while simply discarding without cause real evidence, then you are not debating and not engaging in civilized discussion. You are trolling and writing propaganda. It is dishonest, and you will be called on it.

Hater says

Again I ask, would you rather live on a tropical planet or an iceball?

I'd rather live in the subtropics, which I do right now, but won't be able to do when Florida is under water, which is already happening in all of Miami-Dade county. Our streets that have never flooded before and now flooding routinely. We see the effect of rising sea levels RIGHT NOW and it threatens our jobs and our homes. It's not an academic issue to us.

What right do you have to destroy our homes and our businesses? Why should we simply accept the loss of trillions of dollars of real estate and tens of trillions of dollars of businesses? Your greed and minor fiscal benefits does not outweigh that.

This thread is the epitomy of irresponsible do-nothings, who blame everyone else for their problems, but can do nothing to fix things themselves except piss and moan.

Keep talking about mans ability to dominate nature when we can't even predict rain. Keep bitching about coal while you drive your oil and coal powered cars(how do u think electricity is generated...). Keep saying how enlightened you are with a house full of petrolum based products, and no thought ever reusing anything.

Just remember what will outlive your endless gas of irrelevant words, is your environmentally irresponsible footprint.

This discussion is useless.
When there is a million dead bodies in the streets of Mumbai or Karachi, it will be more convincing.
We can then point fingers at idiots.

repost

Hater says

@dan8267

You don't win a debate by telling other people how stupid they are. And if you really think someone is so stupid, why debate them?

Keep it civil, argue ideas not who fucks more goats

Oh honeybuns, I presented verified evidence from experts and countered every single debunked lie you repeated. It is you who is not rising to the challenge of debate.

Oh, and civility means not lying in a debate. You can disagree about opinions. You can present honest evidence to support your case. You can make rational arguments against the other side's evidence. But if you post false evidence that has been debunked and keep claiming it as legitimate evidence while simply discarding without cause real evidence, then you are not debating and not engaging in civilized discussion. You are trolling and writing propaganda. It is dishonest, and you will be called on it.

Reposting again

Reposting again. This is starting to demonstrate the Barbara Streisand Effect.

Reposting post marked ad hom for supression. Also marked Hater's posts ad hom in retaliation. @Patrick, how's that ad hom working? Looks like a lot of abuse.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

Climate change is a problem that is both important and urgent, and thus should be handled right away

How you gonna make those foreign polluters obey?

This is like arguing that we should not try to stop terrorism simply because not every state is doing so. It's a retarded argument.

1. Pollution is cumulative. So the pollution we add matters regardless of what other states do.
2. Pollution is most destructive locally. More reasons why we should stop polluting our land, air, and water.
3. Yes, there are plenty of mechanisms for reducing world-wide pollution by all states.
4. There is the political will from other states to cooperate on pollution control. This was proven with the Kyoto Protocol.

The Only Nations That Haven't Signed 1997's Global Climate Treaty are Afghanistan, Sudan & the U.S.A. (Great company we're keeping.)

A total of 192 countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty that's the closest thing we have to a working global agreement to fight climate change. That's almost every country, state, and even one "regional economic integration organization", according to the United Nations.

Saying that the United States can do nothing about climate change because we don't have the cooperation of other nations is completely wrong and beyond stupid.

Hater says

And there is nothing you can do to stop global warming. So stop scaring the children with dire scenarios and start lobbying to cut population and pollution, which are the REAL problems facing humanity.

Climate change is a real problem, and it's occurring right now and creating problems right now. But like most problems, it will get must worse if left to fester.

Your selfish and defeatist comment reveals your intent. You don't care that climate change is real or its effects are terrible. You simply don't want us addressing the problem. That is why you should not be respected. You have never been concerned about the truth or what is best for America, only preventing selfish people like you from being able to pollute and impoverish the rest of us to satisfy your own greed.

You are also wrong about there being nothing we can do to mitigate and prepare for climate change. If that were the case, you would not be afraid that we will do those things. We can start with pollution control laws and pollution taxes. As I stated, this is the free market solution. Allowing pollution is corporate welfare and letting the state pick winners and losers. Pollution is communism.

Hater says

And you think Al Gore didn't say all of the ice would melt unless you give him money.

He did not say that, and only an idiot would claim so.

The only people with profit motives are the polluters denying climate change. They are like the tobacco industry claiming that smoking does not cause cancer.

It takes a particularly immoral scumbag to lie when lives are at stake. How Unamerican is it to endanger your fellow Americans with lies? It's as bad as terrorism.

Hater says

Why do you want to farm in Manhattan?

If you don't understand my response, you are beyond hope. I cannot dumb it down any more. Everyone else got the point.

Keep bringing attention to this post.

Reposting again

Hater says

Comet hits earth, all life destroyed.

Let's get to work on that comet avoidance system. It will be costly, but don't you care about the children?

This is an idiotic comparison, coupled by the fact that we should be starting a program to prevent comets and asteroids from wiping out the Earth. But even if that were not the case, you'd still be wrong.

All I can say is that you must truly suck at business if this is how you think. As anyone competent in running any business in any field knows, there are two aspects of a problem: importance and urgency.

A problem is important if it has a significant impact. A problem is urgent if it must be solved soon or not at all. The very first thing you work on are problems that are both important and urgent, then urgent, then important, and you don't bother with things that are neither.

An asteroid or comet hitting the Earth and wiping out all of humanity is extremely important, but not at all urgent since its such a rare event. As such, a wise business man would start a non-rushed task to slowly and cheaply come up with a solution. That solution would not have to come anytime soon, but you can make a little progress every month.

Climate change is a problem that is both important and urgent, and thus should be handled right away. Any decent business man would acknowledge this and be pro-active in finding a solution.

All of this is obvious. You would suck at business.